Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

These damn kids made me hope again. It's not their fault, but I really didn't want to let go of my pessimism. With the GOP in power chances still are nothing will happen and I don't want to be frustrated and disappointed again.

The biggest issue was it was based on a made up idea. So called "assault weapons" were legal, semiautomatic firearms that shared only a cosmetic similarity to actual assault weapons, which by definition are fully automatic. The second biggest issue was that it was written by people who lacked the most rudimentary understanding of firearms in general, let alone how firearms work, which led to a lot of fluff and nonsense in the text of the statute. The third, but most damning, was that it focused on mere cosmetic features that had nothing to do with how the weapon worked.

While I don't want to argue about the specific details here, you are obviously much, much more qualified than I am, but if you want to make rules, you have to be arbitrary to some degree. Why is the speed limit in your state 65 instead of 60 or 70 or 75? Why is the legal drinking age 21 and not 20 or 18 or 22 in the US?

And I am not completely convinced that these rules are necessarily the product of people not understanding firearms. I can easily see a way where this is nothing but the result of a political compromise. Where precisely because of some people's knowledge about firearms the rules became the way they were. Just picture this: it is quite easy to make an argument for putting fully automatic weapons in a separate category of firearms, which is harder to get. Automatic weapons are not used to go hunting. Nor are they good self-defense weapons. So that is an easy sell, politically.

Now the next distinction is between semiautomatic weapons and something like a bolt-action rifle. There is no political majority for banning all semiautomatic weapons (which would include pistols, and AFAIK pretty much every pistol sold is self-loading). Where does a pistol end and a rifle start? Do you go by butt stock? Barrel length? What if the butt stock is optional? And once you make rules, gun manufacturers will exploit the loopholes. If you ban pistol grips, we will make something that according to the letter of the law isn't a pistol grip, but functions like one. Especially if you are opposed to firearms restrictions, you can soften the impact by making so many holes in the rules that the weapons you don't want banned won't be banned (sans cosmetic changes).

I have very little expertise in firearms, but I can already see a path that led to the rules the way they are today, where the apparent non-sennsical-ness is not due to lack of expertise, but due to political compromise.

Originally Posted by ghporter

And it was essentially a failure on an epic scale. Neither side of today's debate can claim anything truly substantial politically about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the 1994 ban, though both have tried.

That depends crucially on what your goal is. If you wanted to take some of the bite out of the rules, I think the ban has worked, no? On paper, you put a law on the books from the category gun control. And people who are against that sort of thing understand very quickly that the impact will be very small.

Originally Posted by ghporter

To me - as a (hopefully) scientific thinker, this says that the idea of banning the hardware used in these events wasn't the correct direction to take. And examining the events both during and since the expiration of that ban points to something very important. These events have been primarily focused on people who were alienated by specific groups - or in specific settings - to such an extent that the perpetrators felt that their exceptional violence was warranted.

I see this ban more of an impossible compromise.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Let's be clear: you don't make a person a "school shooter" by telling him his haircut is bad. It takes a lot of problems, piled on top of problems. Cruz in Florida had been expelled for his behavioral problems. In the (distant) past, kids with behavioral problems would be routed to a number of different tracks to address their behavioral issues.

What exactly could have been done differently here? AFAIK the FBI could not have flagged him and prevented him from purchasing a rifle. Nor should that be the responsibility of teachers who are, as they are now, underpaid, under appreciated and are expected to take some of the responsibility from parents. If we want them to function as security guards, that's insanity. We cannot complain that it is a mental health problem and then not invest anything in the health care, especially mental health care sector.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Kids that were only disruptive usually learned through classical conditioning that disrupting the class meant unpleasant stuff like special assignments, in-school detention, and consequences at home. Today schools have to focus so strictly on standardized test performance that they don't have the resources to even try to redirect disruptive kids. They don't even bother to teach cursive, which is an important neurodevelopmental skill that translates to development of almost every other motor skill a person has.

That sounds too much like “They don't make 'em like they used to!” to me

Originally Posted by ghporter

Why do we guard sporting events and political candidates with armed law enforcement officers, but proudly label schools as "gun free zones," essentially labeling them as "victim zones"?

Because when children are in school, they should not have to fear for their lives.

Originally Posted by ghporter

As far as I can see from available data, the National Instant Background Check System does not receive all of the specific information it is supposed to get on individuals from ANY of the 50 states, and many do not provide this information in a timely manner. If we fixed this, by itself, we might be able to short-stop future shootings by blocking the shooter from buying a weapon in the first place. Fixing NICS is a start, it's practical, and it shouldn't cause anyone on either side of the debate to flinch too much.

There are lots of small fixes that can be applied to better enforce existing laws. There is a ban from the 1980s that prevents the ATF from creating a database of firearms (computer-based or otherwise), specifically to impede the ATF's ability to process a lot of firearms-related searches.

There are a lot of things you can do, but only a few are politically feasible. In my mind, if you want a gun, you should need a license. And not as in US driver's license, think pilot's license-difficult. (Of course, the exact rules may different for the type of firearm you are interested in and whether you e. g. want to carry concealed or not.) You should be obliged to regular training, and you are responsible for keeping the gun safe. If you lose a gun (or “lose” a gun) and not report it? You are on the hook. Do you think this has any chance of passing in the US?

What I get from the (potentially incorrect) Wiki rundown seems to say a semi-auto M16 with a few inconsequential nerfs (i.e. no grenade launcher hardpoint) would be legal.

The only difference between this and a similarly nerfed AR is the collapsable stock.

It’s better to have that, which is why they put it there, but not having it doesn’t exactly produce an ineffectual weapon, as demonstrated by the M16.

To me, the much bigger dent is the high capacity magazine ban. This makes either significantly less effective, and I’m less thrilled with that, but like full-auto, overcoming the limitation when one is in a situation of last resort isn’t that hard, so I think it’s reasonable to impose the limitation when such situations are few and far between.

“Statistic after statistic shows that guns in the home lead to higher chances of murder, suicide, and unintentional self-injury,” said NRA head Wayne LaPierre. “By properly arming ourselves we can stop these guns from harming us and our families.”

Wait...LaPierre accepts stats that show guns in the home lead to (at least the chance of) more gun deaths? So, by that logic, the answer to the opioid overdose crisis is to stock homes with more opioids?

Something about this sets off the little "propaganda alarm" in the back of my head. It's a catchy, bumper-sticker size phrase that people can repeat without actually having to think.

I mean, let's break it down:

Sporting events
• More vulnerable because they pack people in a small space.
• Have more money to spend on security because they are for profit
• Have incentive because attendance would plummet if they were insecure

Political candidates
• Are lightning rods for grievances
• JFK, RFK, Reagan
• Are in control of their own security, for better or worse (See: Scott Pruitt)

On the other side why don't we do the same for schools?
• Security is expensive
• Some parents object to sending their kids into environments with guns
• Parents don't want to send their children into prison-like conditions

IMO, armed guards is not a good answer. They are only the 'best' answer when you are unwilling to entertain gun control. Further, the track record for armed guards isn't jaw dropping. Colombine had armed guards. So did this place. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And if they don't, what next? More armed guards? And if that doesn't work?

Arming teachers is even dumber and completely inconsiderate. People who get paid poorly, often spend their own money to cover underfunding, and are disrespected by society are now being asked to arm and train to kill their own students, likely for free. On top of their busy schedules.

I mean, how dumb are you? Our police have a lot of trouble knowing when and who to shoot and to do it straight. You think overworked teachers can do it 'as well'?

JUST IN: Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel says Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resource officer "never went in" to freshman building amid deadly Parkland shooting; "He should have went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer."

Wait...LaPierre accepts stats that show guns in the home lead to (at least the chance of) more gun deaths? So, by that logic, the answer to the opioid overdose crisis is to stock homes with more opioids?

Even the teachers who are ex-army or just know guns, do not want them in the classroom. More chance of them being misused, stolen, etc.

I had a very adult conversation with my 10yo this morning. They said if there were armed guards in the schools the "little kids" would be scared.

Your ten year-old has enough intellectual and emotional maturity to understand both what the armed guards would represent and how they would affect those around them. This puts him ahead of a good amount of the voting age public.

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Feb 23, 2018, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

IMO, armed guards is not a good answer. They are only the 'best' answer when you are unwilling to entertain gun control. Further, the track record for armed guards isn't jaw dropping. Colombine had armed guards. So did this place. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And if they don't, what next? More armed guards? And if that doesn't work?

It's a fantasy. Some gun owners would love to be in that position, because then they could take their service revolver with six rounds of ammo and take down an active shooter with a semi-automatic rifle and plenty of high-capacity magazines and possibly hostages. It would totally go well, and they would totally be the hero.

When all of the sexual assault victims began coming forward and people heckled them about waiting so long, accused them of making up stories, and claimed that they must be weak or gold-digging or straight up lying, because why wouldn't you just come out right away and say something? And then we see that it's not a matter of strength or masculinity because the same thing happened to Terry Crews and Brenden Frasier.

Because you don't know how certain situations will affect you. You don't know what primal state your brain will regress to when somebody sexually assaults you, and you don't know what primal state your brain will regress to when bullets start flying around your head. But a lot of these people have no capacity for honest self-reflection and believe that in that moment, they'd be a hero.

Volunteers took turns on a set designed to look like the offices of the weekly newspaper. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, volunteers played the role of armed civilian.Time and time again, the armed civilian "dies" - shot by a round that marks him or her with paint.

In only two cases volunteers were able to take out one of the two gunmen in the process.

"Still got killed, but I did better than I thought I would do," said father of four Parks Matthew. He was curious to see what protective instincts may kick in.

When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

When all of the sexual assault victims began coming forward and people heckled them about waiting so long, accused them of making up stories, and claimed that they must be weak or gold-digging or straight up lying, because why wouldn't you just come out right away and say something? And then we see that it's not a matter of strength or masculinity because the same thing happened to Terry Crews and Brenden Frasier.

That's a good comparison. Hell, chongo mocked one of the victims because they were supposed to be a 'strong woman.'

To me - as a (hopefully) scientific thinker, this says that the idea of banning the hardware used in these events wasn't the correct direction to take.

I'm not about to argue with you about what was wrong with the ban, but lets not pretend it was a ban to prevent mass shootings. It was a measure that fulfilled the Democratic mandate of being seen to take rational-looking action on gun control and the Republican mandate of not doing anything they don't have to that might impact either gun sales or a particularly rabid subsection of their base.

Originally Posted by ghporter

How does a 19 year old kid get his hands on a firearm that costs hundreds of dollars?

Plenty of kids have ready access to stuff they can't personally afford. You have adults buying rifles for 5-year-olds in numbers sufficient to market a rifle as "my first rifle". Don't these shooter kids typically get their guns from their parents?

Originally Posted by ghporter

How does the school system not plainly see that specific kids are becoming more and more alienated and disruptive - or the system sees this but does nothing useful about it?

We've all known people that we always knew would do something 'off' at some point. You can't go around restricting their rights based on the fact they are creepy or unsociable. Many of them hide their true compulsions anyway.

Originally Posted by ghporter

Why do we guard sporting events and political candidates with armed law enforcement officers, but proudly label schools as "gun free zones," essentially labeling them as "victim zones"?

Should schools really have to feel like prisons? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, North Korea or 1984. Not the land of the free.

Originally Posted by ghporter

I don't think anything like a ban on scary looking firearms (which is all the 1994 ban was, and all that Ms. Feinstein is suggesting now) will impact the frequency or severity of these events. I think we need to do something about how we vet purchasers of any firearm. For example, the NICS should have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter, but Virginia law kept the guy's shrinks from submitting their assessments of how he was a danger to himself and others.

As far as I can see from available data, the National Instant Background Check System does not receive all of the specific information it is supposed to get on individuals from ANY of the 50 states, and many do not provide this information in a timely manner. If we fixed this, by itself, we might be able to short-stop future shootings by blocking the shooter from buying a weapon in the first place. Fixing NICS is a start, it's practical, and it shouldn't cause anyone on either side of the debate to flinch too much.

Yes the background checks need to be better, but you need to start considering a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Starting with rifles and heading towards handguns in the not too distant future. It hasn't even been on the table for decades now. It hasn't even been close to the table.

If I recall correctly, you are a military doctor yes? I'm amazed that someone who must be more than capable of rational scientific thinking, who I assume has first hand experience not only of using more firearms than most (if only in training), but of seeing/treating the damage they can do and beyond that of the psychological issues that can lead people to snap the way these shooters must, if not for the same reasons or with the same results can be on the side of this issue that you are on. However you explain it, that is perhaps the best example of the real problem when it comes to guns in America.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Did I really hear Marco Rubio say the "The first amendment is as important as the second"?
Millions of people use the first amendment daily. The second amendment is about a check on tyranny. It has never been used once since its inception.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I think a great idea for the gun control lobby would be to start an alternative to the NRA. Call it something that will appeal to NRA members like the Patriot Rifle Association or something, have cheaper membership fees and have members voluntarily submit to extra gun control rules like using safes, not owning certain weapons etc etc. Whatever they can stretch to ensuring or just make them sign a pledge if they think its enough.
The point being to give gun enthusiasts the opportunity to demonstrate they are genuinely sensible gun owners and not trigger happy morons playing real life COD and that they really care about kids dying. Erode the NRA membership and weaken their power base further. They need to keep the pressure on and go in for the kill.

Would be nice to see more than John Oliver pressing Apple and Amazon to drop NRATV as well.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Perhaps in the same way that Trump's presence has encouraged MeToo and the other similar campaigns, as your thread alleges.

To me the big difference is Trump has a history of assault and is a symbol of getting away with it. There's no equivalent to his behavior or opinions on guns. I think it the cult-like repetition of 'thought and prayers' by republican politicians and their fatalistic attitude towards guns that pushed things over the edge.

#Breaking The new law strips law-abiding adults aged 18-20 of their Second Amendment right to self-protection and imposes unnecessary delays on all firearm purchases. This bill punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual.

The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging Florida’s newly-enacted ban on the purchase of firearms by adults between the ages of 18-21. It is an affront to #2A, as it totally eviscerates the #2A rights of law-abiding adults to keep and bear arms #DefendTheSecond

"Totally eviscerates"

The only silver lining is their instantaneous opposition should help give them some more bad PR.

I don't see how this is about Trump. Trump isn't what made those kids be outspoken.

To a malignant narcissist, which trump is in spades, everything, and I literally mean everything, has to be about themselves, which also explains his shirt cuffs. They are also literally incapable of feeling empathy and emotion, and that includes toward family members. What they are very good at is acting, so that others believe them.

There's a reason he's had five children from three wives, and, I believe, cheated on Melania (probably more than once). Some of the media has pointed out his mental illness, but he gets off scot-free from most of the MSM.

"@BarackObama you owe the Parkland students an apology…Had every child been given the same armed security yours were protected by there never would've been a Parkland massacre for you to weaponize in your #TIME100 hit piece attacking #NRA" @stinchfield1776 #NationalSchoolWalkout